Generally and unrelated to Gay issues, I have read occasionally, and I am NOT a legal expert of any sort, that when an issue is appealed to a higher court, that the higher court, either appropriately or generally, takes the starting position that the ruling of the lower court was a correct one unless it is overwhelmingly proven that the contrary is the case.

I don’t know if this is a written procedure, or just the way things work in the judicial system. I’m certainly open for correction.

]]>By: Emily Khttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/08/24154/comment-page-1#comment-72277
Sat, 10 Jul 2010 01:54:14 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24154#comment-72277Appealing might be a good move, then. It will make Obama appear to be upholding the law of the land, as is his duty (which unfortunately includes DOMA), score points among small-minded voters, and take it to the SCOTUS. Let’s hope the SCOTUS would concur with MA in this one, though…
]]>By: ebohlmanhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/08/24154/comment-page-1#comment-72215
Fri, 09 Jul 2010 18:22:53 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24154#comment-72215Dayle: The 10th Amendment basically restricts Congress’ powers. The 14th Amendment requires that state actions be in compliance with the Federal constitution. So no, even though states have the power to decide who can get married, they can’t do so in a manner that violates the Constitution.

Jim: According to Adam Bonin at DailyKos, if the ruling isn’t appealed it will apply only within MA.

MaskedBandit: MA repealed the “1913 law” that required out-of-state couples getting married there to meet the marriage requirements of their home states. With respect to your other questions, none of them have yet been litigated, so it’s all up in the air.

Massachusetts, as I recall, requires that your home state supports same-sex marriage in the home state. (I could be wrong on this.) Other states do not have this requirement.

1) Is it possible to get married in a state with same-sex marriage and be treated as married by the federal government even if your home state refuses to recognize that fact?
2) Are you only married in the eyes of the federal government if you have residency in a state supporting same-sex marriage?
3) Are you only married if one or both are physically present in same-sex marriage states?

Basically, what are the extents of a same-sex marriage? Just because you may move from one state to another doesn’t mean that you divorced or separated your assets from your partner’s.

]]>By: Jim Burrowayhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/08/24154/comment-page-1#comment-72203
Fri, 09 Jul 2010 17:09:44 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24154#comment-72203I think we would want the Obama administration to appeal this in order to eventually get it to the Supreme Court. If it remains at the lower court level, might its impact be limited either geographically or to a limited set of circumstances related specifically to these cases?

As a heterosexual married man I do not need to worry about weather another state I travel too recognizes me as married, and indeeed a divorce in any state = a divorce in all states. Today this court put marriage legally the property of the states to decide.

Actually, in some circumstances you would have to worry. Currently, 32 states have varying degrees of laws where marriage between 1st cousins, or 1st cousins once removed are not recognized as valid in that state, even if that marriage was performed in a state where it is legal.

So if you were married to a 1st cousin, or 1st cousin once removed (which is legal in 18 states and the District of Columbia, and in most of the rest of the world), that marriage may not be recognized in 32 other states.

]]>By: Priya Lynnhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/08/24154/comment-page-1#comment-72188
Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:58:28 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24154#comment-72188I hope you’re right Customartist and I’m interested in hearing more as to why you think it would be difficult for a higher court to overturn this ruling.
]]>By: customartisthttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/08/24154/comment-page-1#comment-72186
Fri, 09 Jul 2010 15:51:21 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24154#comment-72186As usual, it is necessary to disregard straight folk such as Dale who EITHER misunderstand the ruling OR intentionally seek to convolude the otherwise clear issues and results.

The court ruled that the Federal Government must acknowledge that which States have decided as it relates to granting marriages, that it cannot constitutionally create laws such as DOMA, that DOMA created a “class”.

The Judge was very clear, very thorough, and very well spoken.

I will be difficult IMHO for a higher court to overturn the ruling, and to disregard the relating precedents cited therein.

]]>By: AJDhttp://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/2010/07/08/24154/comment-page-1#comment-72156
Fri, 09 Jul 2010 14:17:39 +0000http://www.boxturtlebulletin.com/?p=24154#comment-72156My worry is the timing. This decision took place just months before the November elections, so there’s a chance it could swing quite a few of them. Combined with appeals to the Tea Party types, renewed Republican promises to amend the Constitution to ban gay marriage will likely win a lot of votes.
]]>